by Holly Walker
The Attorney-General has tabled a report on the Bill of Rights implications of my Lobbying Disclosure Bill, which is due to have its first reading in Parliament soon.
The bill would establish a statutory register of lobbyists, and require anyone paid to lobby MPs, Ministers, and their staff to file quarterly returns. It would also allow the Auditor General to develop a code of ethics for lobbyists and empower her to investigate alleged breaches of that code.
It is based on the principle that the public have a right to know who is lobbying MPs about what, but also acknowledges that lobbying is a legitimate activity that can help to inform MPs and contribute to good decision-making. The intention is simply to make that activity more transparent.
The AG’s report is a useful contribution to the discussion about the bill, and adds to the considerable feedback I have had from the wide range of stakeholders I’ve been meeting with since the bill was pulled from the ballot just before Easter.
I must say I was disappointed to see that the AG thinks the bill restricts freedom of expression. Access to MPs is an important part of our democratic system and something we are particularly good at in New Zealand. The bill does not seek to restrict that access or expression in any way – merely to enable reporting on it. I don’t accept the premise of the AG’s report that the bill is necessarily a restriction to freedom of expression.
Nevertheless, I was pleased to see that he considers transparency an important objective. The crux of his argument is simply that the bill’s scope is too wide, that it would inadvertently capture too many people in the definition of lobbyist, to justify the perceived restriction.
Fortunately that’s feedback I’ve had from other people as well, and it’s one of the things I’ve flagged that I’m hoping to explore and address at the Government Administration Select Committee if the bill passes its first reading. I get on very well with my colleagues on that committee, and I’m confident that we can address the issue of scope and definition that the AG has identified in his report.
I’m very excited about the opportunity to steer my first member’s bill through this process, and am looking forward to scrutinising the bill based on the feedback I’ve received in order to make sure that it is workable and practical, while still achieving the core purpose of bringing a much-needed measure of transparency to lobbying activity in New Zealand.
Free and open access to Government is an important matter of public interest, and the public have a right to know who is engaged in lobbying activities. I’m confident we can achieve a Lobbying Disclosure regime that satisfies both of these conditions.
Published in Justice & Democracy | Parliament by Holly Walker on Tue, June 12th, 2012
Tags: Attorney general, Christopher Finlayson, Holly Walker, lobbying, Lobbying Disclosure Bill, member's bills, open government
More posts by Holly Walker | more about Holly Walker
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Loading...
I like the concept of the bill. The commercial aspect is a good one to focus on, as that helps sort the lobbyist from the constituent. As an activist, I wouldn’t have a problem registering me or my organisation, though there’s no money involved. But wouldn’t it make more sense for the MPs to declare who has been to see them, rather than the lobbyists, who may be a little…selective in their reporting. (Hey, if we trusted them, we wouldn’t need the legislation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Free and open access to Government is an important matter of public interest” – Correct, and I am glad that the AG agrees there should be no restriction to that access.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
Holly. I agree that transparency for lobbyists is a good idea. But this is a clanger…
Free speech is not free if it must be reported on. Many times that fact that people have communicated is as incriminating as what they say. If they cannot do it secretly they cannot do it.
For example if I work on a building site and I am worried about safety and my boss I will want to tell the labour department. All my boss needs to know that I have seen the DoL to fire me.
How is that free speech?
peace
W
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Lobbying should be transparent, there are already laws to deal with ‘smiling assassin’ type employers, as above.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)